sammyk:Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

The ban on "Assault Weapons" and high capacity magazines expired so I can claim that more people being able to arm and defend themselves with previously banned weapons contributed. to the decline.

I think it would be smarter to look at the decline in gang turf wars and drug violence during that time than gun laws or lack there of. It won't serve your agenda but it is closer to the truth.

Most "gun control" legislation is nothing more than polticians jerking off a particular constituency(If we just get rid fo those guns with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and pistol grip stocks we will all be safer nonsense). Normally that constituency is the soccer mom for the children crowd or those who also need government to protect them from the evils of large soft drinks and trans fats is also afraid the 80 million lawful gun owners.

I wish that folks would stop lumping suicide by gun into gun death stats. My reason is this: If someone is determined to kill themselves, they are going to use whatever means necessary, and all the gun laws in the world will not stop someone who has decided to off themselves.

I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

There have always been floods, famine, war, poverty, earthquakes, etc; the biggest difference is that we are globally connected. Used to be that a typhoon in the Chinese sea would be like it doesnt exist for us in America. Now we are connected via the tubes we hear more shiat than we ever have before.

And x number of people are murdered each year by being pushed down stairs, so there's no excuse not to ban stairs as long as there is at least a single murder each year, right? 80,000 people are killed each year from alcohol. We seem to have no problem with that amount of death in exchange for our freedom to have an entertaining beverage, so until the number of gun deaths exceeds that number, you really have no right to question if the 12,000 murders per year are too much of a price to pay for our freedom to own defensive weapons.

Tumunga:Subby: "In the last 20 years, gun murders have dropped almost by half. Fark: Americans believe gun crime is rising. Because hospitals have increased the survival rate of gun shot victims by almost 100% in the last 20 yearsThanks, Before ObamacareAmerican media medical caregivers"

FTFSubbie

That would be a brilliant observation if it weren't wrong.

"Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades. "

Wayne 985:So is selling to a felon, but it happens anyway because our background check system is filled with holes. I'm advocating plugging them.

If you didn't have Cuomo, Feinstein, Bloomberg, and even Obama prior to his seeking the presidency advocating for things like a ban of entire classes of firearms, the outright confiscation of guns, arbitrary magazine limits, and a ton of other things that do nothing but further their anti-gun agenda you could get improved background checks.

The State of New York and the Mayor of New York City did far more to kill the senate bill than the NRA could ever possibly have accomplished.

sammyk:ArmagedDan: clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over

Where do you paranoid freaks get this shiat? No one is seriosly talking about confiscating guns. Hell even the proponents of another assault weapons ban have all but admitted defeat and have changed focus to trying to expand background checks. rants like yours are why people call you "gun nuts"

Senator Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

Obama:[During his Presidential campaign]: "I continue to support a ban on concealed carry"and[As a Senator]: "Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" "Yes."

New York Mayor Cuomo: "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."

Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa State Representative, regarding semi-automatic weapons (!): "We need to get them off the streets - illegally - and even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them"

There has been a slew, a pile, of proposed state legislation - primarily in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Missouri and California, but in other states as well - that would ban magazines and entire categories of guns without a grandfather clause. Some simply require them to be surrendered upon death, and would have made transfers illegal, basically a slow confiscation from the next generation. Some legislation would have called for door-to-door confiscation, while some simply gave residents a time limit to evacuate their guns and/or magazines out of the state before becoming felons.

This is why we voice concern about gun bans, and to a lesser degree (because it's currently politically unpopular, thankfully), confiscations. Because people in power keep coming back to it. It's not a delusion, it's right there.

After the recent compromise failed (which frankly surprised me), more-stringent gun legislation is on a back burner, but still simmering. I don't think we'll see major bans pass anytime soon, and the more draconian state laws may end up going before the Supreme Court. But the idea has been around since the attempted universal handgun ban of the 1960's, and will likely continue despite better options for curbing crime being available. That's what boggles my mind.

You don't win an argument by calling me a "gun nut". That phrase is far less powerful as an ad hominem than you seem to think it is.

mrshowrules:HeadLever: mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence,

The state I live in has a gun violence rate on par with Canada. Do we have a problem too?

/Also sports a Brady Score of 2.

Cherry picking.

You are correct. By eliminating all states with relatively low rates of violent crime despite relatively few restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership as outliers, a correlation between violent crime and few restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership is much more easily established.

What do I have to do to buy a gun online or by phone?Legally when an individual wants to buy a gun through the mail they must have it shipped to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder. However if you do not have an FFL you can still order online.First find a local gun store or other FFL holder in your area and get their permission to have a gun shipped to them from J&G. Most dealers will do a transfer for you for a small fee.Second have them send us a signed in ink, legible, copy of their FFL via fax, email, or mail. (C&R licenses can be mailed, or are also accepted via fax or email if a copy of the driver's license with matching name is included.) Please include the phone number and contact name. This only needs to be sent once as it is kept on file until it expires.Third once we have the FFL on file you can order online being sure to enter the FFL's info in the space for shipping address and your info in the space for billing address. We can then ship to the dealers place of business and you can pick up your gun from them meeting all local state and federal laws. If you order and we have no FFL on file we will email you back explaining that you need an FFL causing your order to be delayed. All items are subject to prior sale, an order is not considered complete until all documents are received.

sammyk:nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though. Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother. Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols. Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers. I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here. Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

Well, in that same time span concealed carry has grown from a handful of states to all but one and gun sales have grown tremendously, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us that's not important to consider either.

Background checks are responsible for the drop in shootings and overall crime because they started 20 years ago, but the rapid spread of concealed carry isn't even though that trend started at about the same time. Got it.

Here's a news flash, the biggest single factor is probably the aging population. As a nation, we're older and old people don't go around shooting folks nearly as much as the younger crowd.

I'm actually in favor of expanded background checks, but they stop practically no crime. They simply protect the seller from civil and maybe criminal liability.

nekom:I have a 6 year old daughter, I would prefer to live in a world where some lunatic will not shoot up her school.

Then you'd better move to a deserted island or self-colonize another planet because folks have been attacking schools for centuries and will do so forever. There is no better terror target that someone's children.

I have a 3 year old and I'm far more worried about her drowning in a pool, getting abused by a teacher/caregiver, or even getting bitten by a venomous snake while playing in our yard than I am of her school getting shot up because all of those are statistically far more likely to happen.

I took the opportunity to examine the site that you referenced; the site allows customers to arrange firearm purchases for pick-up at a physical store. It in no way allows customers to order firearms for delivery to their homes, and your comparison of that website to such a delivery service is demonstrably false.

GnomePaladin:HeadLever: GnomePaladin: Maine has a shiatton of guns space and few gun laws people and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

So you mean gun crime is independent of the type and prevalence of guns and is rooted in other factors? Hmm, maybe we should start looking at those other factors then, donchathink?

This is where gun nuts always go wrong. No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.

That banning the presence of pistol grips and collapsing stocks on popular and rarely criminally misused rifle models are claimed to be "common sense steps" causes many gun rights advocates to be averse to proposals of what are claimed to be "common sense steps".

nekom:No, we can MODERNIZE a centuries old document. Just like we did with slavery, women's suffrage and other parts. When the second amendment was written, people had muskets.

Given that, what is the basis for it being illegal for me to pursue my own nuclear program? Arms are arms, right? Fully automatic weapons are largely illegal, why is that?

How is that pending legislation to amend the constitution coming along?

I haven't heard of much progress in that area, but that is what is necessary to "modernize" that document. Slavery, women's suffrage, senatorial elections, prohibition, direct taxation, 18 year olds voting, etc. were all brought about by following the constitutional amendment process.

clkeagle:Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

Actually, the point worth considering is how much the actions of the gun control crowd contribute to the failure to prevent these mass homicides, because they are so quick to leap on these incidents as opportunities to try and emotionally blackmail their way to new legislation they drown out meaningful discussion.

If the debate following Newtown had been about whether we are doing enough to understand the causes of these tragedies so we can identify and intervene before someone's mind becomes so utterly broken they decide to kill schoolkids we could actually have arrived at some beneficial change. Perhaps an education program to better help parents and teachers spot the warning signs that differentiate normal teenage behaviour from something more serious.

Instead, the gun control bandwagon gets rolling, using this event to promote legislation that wouldn't actually have prevented it. Then the pro-gun crowd respond in kind and we as a country go nowhere.

clkeagle:sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

EyeballKid:So, these are statistics that the NRA didn't buy off Congress to quit collecting? Sorry if my frown that says "you're full of farking bullshiat" hasn't suddenly vanished.

Yeah, the NRA waved a magic wand and stopped the FBI, DOJ, and ATF from ever collecting any data whatsoever! They are like that. You know, magic.

Its not like Congress decided to stop funding the CDC's boondoggle where they handed millions of taxpayer dollars to shoddy researchers with an axe to grind.

nekom:The newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother. Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols.

Like Cho did at Virginia Tech? Where he killed more people? Using 10 and 15 round magazines? I'm glad he didn't start a fire, like Kim Dae-Han did in 2003. Kim, a half-paralyzed man of 56, killed 198 people with two jugs of gas and a lighter. Zhang Pilin killed 112 people in 2002 by causing the plane he was on to crash.

'Assault weapon' bans and magazine restrictions are both moronic, and serve only to hamstring defensive uses of firearms. They won't stop mass killings, not even a total firearms ban can do that.

Given that same logic, you must be a member of the no-prohibitionist movement Then again maybe you like beer and have an acceptable threshold of drunk driving deaths that is greater than zero, much like most people to do with pretty much every issue.

Dusk-You-n-Me:And how one chooses to respond to statistics like these is apparently a matter of interpretation. For some on the right, the argument seems to be, "But look at how much better things are than 20 years ago!" For the left, the argument is, "We still have far more gun deaths than any industrialized democracy on the planet, and with some sensible safety measures, we can build on the recent progress and save more lives."

It's not just right and left. I'm opposed to gun control proposed thus far because none of the rules proposed would actually have stopped the events that they'll alleged to be aimed at stopping.

If someone has a new idea that isn't just "ban scary sounding looking" I'm all ears.

Wayne 985:GUTSU: I mean hey, violating patient-doctor confidentiality and stripping someone of their firearms because they take Xanax is totally commonsense right? Or is it only after the media catches wind of it?http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns

The first paragraph says that if two docs thinks a patient poses a violent threat to others, and if the patient has a handgun without a license, that the patient will lose his guns.

Sounds good.

The second paragraph says this was misapplied to some guy who is now being given his guns back.

Sounds good.

So you think discouraging people from seeking help for their mental health issues is "Good." You also think the government looking through confidential documents, stripping someone of their rights and then when they are caught say "Our bad" is also a "Good thing?"

Wayne 985:GUTSU: Wayne 985: GUTSU: Yes, turning about a million gun owners into felons because their shotgun or rifle has a pistol grip, or god forbid a bayonet lug (even though the bayonet itself is A-OK) is totally commonsense, and not drafted by morons who think "You only need one shot to stop an intruder." Oh yeah, the whole 7 round magazine thing, Now we can own 10 round magazined but if we DARE put 8 rounds in BAM instant felon.

But hey, commonsense right?

Yes, I know that reading is difficult for you.

Hey, I know you don't actually own any guns, so why should you care?

Granted, my .30-06 and 12-gauge have been unused for a while, but I'm pretty confident they're still "guns" that I "own." Then again, my head isn't buried in my ass. You might have a better perspective up there, though I doubt it.

Oh, I get it you're a Fudd! "We'll they aren't coming after my deer rifle!" I find people like you cute, just wait until people try and ban "high powered sniper rifles"

Colorado has seen a huge hit in its guided hunt market. The last figure I saw was just over a million, just in hunt cancellations. That's not even counting the other money that gets spent here by those hunters (fuel, food, other outdoor supplies), it's just returned fees from canceled hunts, hunts that were canceled specifically because of CO's new anti-gun laws. Two large companies have confirmed they are leaving (Magpul, and their plastic molding supplier, I can't recall the name of that one), Magpul because they don't want to operate in a state that won't allow its citizens to purchase their products, and the other because most of their business is with Magpul. I'd call a huge hit to the jobs/economy a large amount of harm, and things are just getting rolling.

The new laws that precipitated all this are extremely unlikely to help with the crime rate and were so poorly worded that they have affects well beyond their stated intent. The 'high capacity' mag ban actually bans something like 90% of all mags regardless of capacity (and yet is toothless enough to be almost completely ineffective (assuming of course that a high cap ban had any chance of doing anything in the first place), and the new transfer laws are worded in a way that you can't even loan a hunting rifle for longer than a weekend.

JesseL:that bosnian sniper: If gun control doesn't work, then why are automatic firearms the least-employed of all available firearms in violent crimes?

Still have yet to get an answer for that one.

Because fully automatic firearms aren't really any more useful than other types for most things?

I'd love to have one for fun, but if I were knocking over a liquor store or massacring a bunch of kids it wouldn't get the job done any better than what I already have.

Fully automatic firearms are pretty much for suppression rather than mass murder. If you hold down the trigger on a fully auto M16, you've got about 4 seconds, you can't control it as well as semi-auto and you're basically just spray and pray. Remember the North Hollywood Shootout? Full auto, ZERO people killed other than the perpetrators.

Quit living in movies, one well placed shot can do more than 30 on full auto. Surprisingly, outside of the difficulty of getting them, they're just not practical for almost anything a criminal wants to do unless you're laying down suppressing fire while your buddies flank your target...

It is paranoia when thegGovernor of New York openly states that confiscation is an option?

It is paranoia when the senior senator from California says "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it "

PDid:The personal rights movement was ginned up and funded by right wing think tanks in the 70s. It has no basis in constitutional law. It's is a wedge issue crafted to keep the working class whites from voting for their own interests. The only cases that have affirmed personal rights are Heller 2008 on the votes of the most biased supreme court in recent history.

Yes. For example, a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy is not a personal right. It is the creation of a right wing agenda.

sammyk:I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over

Where do you paranoid freaks get this shiat? No one is seriosly talking about confiscating guns. Hell even the proponents of another assault weapons ban have all but admitted defeat and have changed focus to trying to expand background checks. rants like yours are why people call you "gun nuts"

Senator Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picki ...

There are always going to be people that actually do want to end private gun ownership. There are always going to be politicians that say stupid things on the campaign trail. The states are going to do what the states are going to do. If you actually pay attention to our current political climate you should understand they are not going to get anywhere.

Checks and balances, how do they farking work?

Where you go off the rails into "nut" territory is when you just avoid what I was talking about(effectiveness of background checks) and go an an admitted rant about gun confiscation.

The important part of my original post was urging that we start prosecuting folks who lie on their background check forms, like we're supposed to.

I went on to complain about politicians instead forwarding new, left-field, draconian gun legislation, most of which has been proven ineffective.

You seem to be getting all hot and bothered about ...me complaining about proposed legislation. I didn't make the proposed legislation up; I also feel that I can complain about actual proposed legislation without getting categorized as a lunatic.

Tomahawk513:To clarify, "scenarios similar to Newtown or Aurora" was meant to say, "scenarios in which a mentally unstable person kills other people," not necessarily those exact scenarios. I would require a recent sign off by a psychiatrist or clinician before purchasing a firearm. It wouldn't contain the person's diagnosis, just a simple pass-fail. This information could be kept in a database that would be federally maintained.

I'd like to see a situation where the person would need to get check-ups annually and/or after any significant life event, such as job loss or divorce. If the person failed that exam, firearms would be removed until he person was once again able to pass. But I would compromise on this if I had to.

Fair enough on scenarios.

As for psychiatrist signoff,A.)are they any other rights/privileges/de facto rights where such a signoff should be required? What about voting, running for office, driving a car, running a business, etc.B.)How do your mitigate psychiatrists who are anti-gun and simply stamp 'fail' on most/all applications.

Annual check ups and job/divorce/life event check ups will require a police state apparatus unheard in this country and reminiscent of some of the nonsense in Japan where the police will inform employers of your legal run-ins, and regularly keep tabs on who lives where.

If you want that kind of state control/knowledge, just go to one of the countries that does that.

I wish that folks would stop lumping suicide by gun into gun death stats. My reason is this: If someone is determined to kill themselves, they are going to use whatever means necessary, and all the gun laws in the world will not stop someone who has decided to off themselves.

I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

\That's all I have to say about that

Your claim is blatantly false. The availability of guns makes the suicide that much easier to conduct. The lack of a gun will make the person contemplate more rigorously on how to off him or herself. During that time, the person might decide not to do the deed. Others might try drugs and fail because they don't know what is the large enough dosage. Others might try jumping from a high place and is talked out of it. The ease of pulling a trigger is what allows many suicidal people to succeed.

Suicide rates of many European nations and of Canada are close to (within 1 per 100,000) of the rate of the United States of America and several developed nations (such as France, Belgium, Austria and Japan) experience a rate of suicide higher than that of the United States of America, though because the majority of these suicides are committed without use of a firearm you (by your own admission) believe them to be more acceptable.

I took the opportunity to examine the site that you referenced; the site allows customers to arrange firearm purchases for pick-up at a physical store. It in no way allows customers to order firearms for delivery to their homes, and your comparison of that website to such a delivery service is demonstrably false.

Fair enough. Dittyderpers comparison of just about anything is demonstrably false. You see he treadshiats anything that has to do with guns. He desperately does anything he can to derail the conversation.

dittybopper's comparison was accurate. Yours was not. Those are objectively verifiable facts.

No, you cannot. At least not in the sense you're talking about. Those guns are not shipped to your house the way they were before 1968. They are shipped to a dealer in your state who then does paperwork and a background check.

Do people like you ever get tired of being grossly and inexcusably misinformed?

GoldSpider:udhq: Overall crime has been falling for almost 30 years, thanks to a variety of environmental factors: mainly, abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline.

dafuq?

I assume you've at least heard of the abortion argument made in the book Freakonomics, no? The argument is that since Roe, abortion has been most prevalent among the demographics most likely to produce criminals, i.e. poor people prone to high-risk behavior. Thus, we've essentially limited the size of this generation's criminal demographic.

The gasoline argument is fascinating, but the central theory is that lead is a primary cause of any number of cognitive and developmental disorders that can predispose a person towards anti-social behavior. There's a direct correlation that can be drawn with each country's decision to go lead-free, and their crime rates dropping by 10-20% in the following decade.

Dimensio:Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.

You've generally been pretty reasonable in these threads, so I'm surprised you're going with the muskets-only theory.

in·fringe1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy"

Regardless of whether those restrictions might work, it's pretty damn hard to argue that they wouldn't "limit" peoples' rights. Those bans are by definition limits which would undermine the intent of the second amendment, which was to allow people to defend themselves individually, and for the people as a whole to defend themselves against their government if it should ever stop acting in the interests of the people.

"Mail ordering" firearms today requires that the firearm be shipped to a federally licensed seller within the state of the buyer; the buyer must undergo a criminal background investigation to establish eligibility before the firearm may be transferred from the licensed seller. They are not "delivered to your doorstep".

"Mail ordering" firearms in the 1950s resulted in the firearm being shipped directly to the home of the buyer.

The two methods are different. Claiming that the ability to do the former is equivalent to doing the latter is dishonest.

CPennypacker:Dimensio: CPennypacker: Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.

Then you are effectively admitting that your opinion is based upon willfully ignoring and disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights. As such, your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is intentionally intellectually dishonest, by your own admission.

You know, when someone expresses their opinion, plainly states that they know it is their opinion and not the law, and that they agree with the dissenting opinion of the case which was written, may I add, by Supreme Court Justices, it kind of makes you look like a reactionary crazy person when you won't let them have ther opinion.

I think your opinion is wrong too but I'm not trying to beat you over the head with the bill of rights like a nutter.

You have openly admitted to disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights in deriving your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, meaning that no reason exists to trust your interpretation as being representative of its original intent. How, exactly, is noting this fact indicative of mental instability?

Tomahawk513:While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide. For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts. Other methods are much less lethal. There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.

That's interesting. How does that explain the fact that there's about a 2% difference between the U.S. and U.K. suicide rates considering guns are infinitely more common and available in the U.S.?

CPennypacker:Dimensio: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the real world, because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do. So while you are technically correct it doesn't really invalidate anything I said. Kudos on the nit pick points, though.

Then you are effectively admitting that your opinion is based upon willfully ignoring and disregarding the intent of the Bill of Rights. As such, your "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is intentionally intellectually dishonest, by your own admission.

Tomahawk513:When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist? History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful. Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.

Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less. But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

CPennypacker:GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

You have now demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of Constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights "grants" nothing; rather, the Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of inherent rights and protects them from government infringement.

CPennypacker:Do you disagree that reducing the number of available guns though any means would also reduce the number of people killed by them, whether the gun is pointed at the person holding it or otherwise?

Then its a relevant statistic.

Well, duh. Yeah, reduction in availability of guns over a long time would lead to a reduction in gun related crimes. Here's the thing though...a significant reduction of guns in the US is not going to happen. My point is that lumping suicide by gun stats along side violent gun crime stats is like...i dunno...talking about all house fires in the US and including "fires" that happen in fire-pits and fireplaces. Yes, it is technically a fire in the home, but not the same thing.

Yes, a death is a death, it is tragic and sad, but I cannot fathom any real, PRACTICAL, and implementable legislation that cuts down on gun related suicide (which again...is not a crime). If it is not a gun, it is running your car in a shut garage, slitting your wrists, taking a lot of pills, jumping off something tall...

"The militia" at the time the Constitution was written was "everyone capable of firing a gun". It was not an organized body.

In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right. It means you have the right to keep and bear arms in the context of your militia service. Don't look at me if you disagree with that interpretation, talk to Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. I just agree with them.

Fortunately, your illogical interpretation is directly contradicted by established law and, therefore, is legally false.

The concept of a right being "collective" is inherently illogical; rights a property of individuals by their nature. "Collectives" may only have powers granted to them. A "collective" cannot exercise a "right".

EatsCrayons:In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded).

In the United States, requiring that guns be locked and unloaded by law has been explicitly ruled to be unconstitutional:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

MJMaloney187:See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.

CPennypacker:Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime. Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.

Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime. Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it. So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things. Ergo using incorrect data.

Dimensio:nekom: soakitincider: 2nd amendment:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

3rd amendment:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.

Indeed.

Amendments 1, and 4-11 were also written in that time. Time for them to relegated to figurehead status.

Come to think of it 13-15 are also pretty old. They're only about 70 years away from those other anachronisms. They too were written in a different time and we'll have to toss them aside eventually, might as well do it now while we're on a roll.

I do have an agenda when it comes to #13 though, I'm in favor labor reform as I've talked about before. I'm tired of all the 13th amendment purists out there blocking sensible slavery legislation. Laws that allow for limited slavery are constitutional, don't infringe on a person's right to attend sporting events, and would help the whole community. They deserve a vote.

tricycleracer:Endive Wombat: I wish that folks would stop lumping suicide by gun into gun death stats. My reason is this: If someone is determined to kill themselves, they are going to use whatever means necessary,

You say that, but the suicide rate went down 65% in Australia in the decade after their gun ban.

Did that have anything to do with the massive anti-suicide campaigns the government kicked into gear a year before the ban?

I'm just going to throw this out here. Maybe, just maybe, it's because despite humanity's obsession with focusing on the scariest and most horrible things that happen to anyone, maybe the world is a better place because of television and video games. Boston and New York fans aside, you can only see people every day, compete against them every day, talk to them, share forums, debate, argue, laugh, cry, blow things up, together every day for so long before trivial things like which particular state, country, or island you live on or in doesn't matter nearly so much as the basic fact that people are essentially people, and some of them are hot.

Dimensio:soakitincider: 2nd amendment:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.

Single shot/ bolt action/ pump/ etc generally are not suitable for self defense, particularly against the government. This country was founded on anti-tyranny ideals and the right of gun ownership allows us to stand up against the government if it becomes abusive.

sammyk:Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

'I'm glad people have this misconception and this false belief works in favor of what I really want... so it's fine'

There's something wrong with you when you basically don't care about what's true and are perfectly happy to let people believe something that's false just so long as gets you what you want.

sammyk:nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though. Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother. Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols. Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers. I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here. Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

Also, to elaborate, we are also jailing people like we have never jailed them before. For 30 years the crime rate has fallen, not 20 as you say. It has been a downward trend even before the Brady legislation was signed.

sammyk:nekom: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though. Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother. Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols. Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers. I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here. Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

Especially those who try to claim that suicides committed with guns aren't "real" gun deaths.

They're gun deaths, but not gun violence as some like to imply. Calling suicides "gun violence" is like claiming that slit wrists are "knife violence"

We also dispute the relevancy given that suicide rates in many countries with strict gun are higher than the US and many more have similar or only slightly less. Suicide is a very different thing from murder and not something that can be simply mitigated by denying access to one particular tool

Not sure where that's coming from, but whatever. I'm not opposed to them on principle. Like most gun laws I haven't seen one proposed that I like. All of them I've seen are either (IMHO) unconstitutional, or can't be affective enough to justify their existence. I also don't think that voter fraud is a large problem (I could be wrong, but as of now I haven't seen enough strong evidence that there is enough fraud going on to cause major problems), so any proposed solutions are already at a disadvantage as they need to cause fewer problems than they are fixing.

Lorelle:Ah. So, going by the article you linked, NOLA is probably #2, not #3, since it "may have had as many as 193 homicides in 2012."

Which does absolutely nothing for you original assertion that about 1000 gun confiscations in NOLA caused a dramatic drop in crime and that eventually returning maybe half of them caused the dramatic rise. It also doesn't show that that NOLA is #1 in gun crimes, which was your next assertion (which you may notice has nothing to do with your first).

You'd have much better luck debating people if you could leave your goalposts still for a minute. Your habit of making one assertion, then when when someone responds to that you reply with an unrelated (and often false) fact isn't doing you any favors.

DVOM:It was just "feel good" legislation that wasn't going to do anything except stir up the gun people.

1) I'm nowhere close to 'riled up'.2) I've shown that just in my state it went beyond riling up gun folks and is causing measurable harm to people.

Lorelle:Nah. Just stating facts. Guided hunts don't drive CO's economy. The state is far more likely to be harmed by the sequester than a few cancelled hunts.

I never claimed they did. When asked to show how the new laws were causing harm, I provided several examples. You stating that the state will survive is completely beside the point, which is the laws that were intended to help not only can't help, they are actually hurting. Yes, the economy here will keep chugging along. The problem is, the economy has been hurt (no matter how minor), and will get nothing in return. Those are not only facts, but relevant facts.

Lorelle:I specifically mentioned the gun murder rate, not the overall murder rate. New Orleans ranks #1 among U.S. cities.

Which, again, sidesteps the original point which is the brief dip in crime (all across the board, it's not like people stopped shooting each other and kept on commuting other crimes) is better attributed to the fact that that there was practically nobody there, and those who were still there were busy surviving. Your notion that crime went down because guns were briefly confiscated is, at best, laughable. Especially when you yourself admit only about a thousand guns were confiscated. Assuming NOLA gun ownership rates follow national rates even somewhat closely, you're looking at something close to 40K guns in the city. Do you really believe confiscating ~1K had any kind of significant affect on crime rates?

Tumunga:Gun killings, and non-fatal gun crimes are down? Then why are the libtards wanting more gun control, when whatever is going on right now is clearly working?

Because the general public still think gun crime is on the rise, most politicians don't want to abandon a useful political football, and a few people are idealistically opposed to civilian gun ownership regardless of the actual harm or good it does.

Wayne 985:GUTSU: Well it doesn't personally affect him, it's not like HE takes medication or has a semi-automatic rifle. None of these laws have anything to do with HIM.

I'm actually on Wellbutrin for depression. If I went over the edge and started making violent threats, I'd hope my doctor would have the sense to contact authorities and that those authorities would take my guns if I wasn't in legal compliance. Then again, as I believe I've made clear, you're kind of an idiot and I'm not.

Haha, you actually think NY needs a reason to strip you on your rights? Just like they did that Librarian? This all still boils down to the fact that you don't think you are affected by the law "Well I'm not dangerous, they'd only go after those "OTHER" people"

I still find you cute, you're a fudd, you laugh in the face of personal rights. It's simply adorable.

Wayne 985:Well, if you want to put the taking of their guns before a court, have the docs and state government testify, then I'm all for that.

Tell me how many gun owners you think will be discouraged from seeking help with their mental health issues, Or how many that will actually admit to owning firarms? Do you just hate the mentially ill? Do you hate having privacy from the government? Do you actually think the government should be allowed to go through confidential documents without oversight to strip people of rights?

As for New Orleans, widespread looting after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led to temporary confiscation of about 1,000 guns. Crime fell dramatically for several months. The guns were eventually returned to their owners, and crime went back up. Truly a victory for everyone, especially the crime victims.

Also, it was only temporary because the courts forced the government to return their illegally seized guns back to their victims.

As for New Orleans, widespread looting after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led to temporary confiscation of about 1,000 guns. Crime fell dramatically for several months. The guns were eventually returned to their owners, and crime went back up. Truly a victory for everyone, especially the crime victims.

The crime going down had more to do with no business being open and 90% of the city evacuated. There was a corresponding spike in crimes in Houston, where many lower income Katrina evacuees were displaced to. State officials in New York are illegally using PHI (in the form of records of prescriptions for anti-depressants) to cross-reference with their registry of pistol permit holders and seizing guns from people who have committed the heinous crime of being prescribed anti-depressants. In some cases, they're even seizing weapons from people who haven't even been prescribed medication.

Lorelle:As for New Orleans, widespread looting after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led to temporary confiscation of about 1,000 guns. Crime fell dramatically for several months. The guns were eventually returned to their owners, and crime went back up. Truly a victory for everyone, especially the crime victims.

I wonder if crime going down had anything to do with the city suddenly being nearly deserted, and then suddenly having a huge inrush of residents that had just lost damn near anything...

Lorelle:Noticeably F.A.T.:Mostly because it's not true. Until just recently things were getting better for gun owners. Old POS laws were expiring, carry permits were getting easier to get, etc. Then some anti-gun folks used some heinous tragedies as justification for passing some truly asinine laws. Laws that not only have no chance to do any good, but are already causing a large amount of harm.

What laws are you referring to, and what harm??

The Nutty Raving Assholes used the Sandy Hook massacre to promote gun sales (which they profit from) by claiming that "OBAMA'S COMIN' FER YER GUNZ!" I wonder how much $$ they made from each slaughtered kid.

The NY Safe Act is going to turn about a million people into felons if they don't register their "assault weapons." Want to know something hilarious? Almost no one is registering, several counties haven't even had a single person come forward.But please argue how turning a million previously law abiding citizens into criminals for a victimless crime isn't "causing harm"

Also, the NRA didn't do shiat, if you want to see the greatest firearms salesman in recent history just google "Barrack Obama"

Well, New York state just turned thousands into criminals, but other than that nice effort at ignoring the truth that gun violence has greatly decreased despite a great increase in the number of guns available and being carried every day.

Mostly because it's not true. Until just recently things were getting better for gun owners. Old POS laws were expiring, carry permits were getting easier to get, etc. Then some anti-gun folks used some heinous tragedies as justification for passing some truly asinine laws. Laws that not only have no chance to do any good, but are already causing a large amount of harm.

PDid:Dimensio: PDid: Dimensio: PDid: Dimensio: PDid: The personal rights movement was ginned up and funded by right wing think tanks in the 70s. It has no basis in constitutional law. It's is a wedge issue crafted to keep the working class whites from voting for their own interests. The only cases that have affirmed personal rights are Heller 2008 on the votes of the most biased supreme court in recent history.

You are correct. The idea that rights are a property of individuals has no basis in reality; such irrational and dishonest thinking has resulted in any individual being able to express any opinion that they desire.

Save the pedantry. I was talking about the personal rights to bear arms versus the collective rights.

For what reason do you not also address the personal right to speak freely versus the collective right?

Cause the there is no militia (collective) qualification in the first amendment.

I understand now. You are dishonestly claiming that the reference to a militia within the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is a constraining qualification, when in reality it is a justification.

How is that dishonest? There is a constrain of a well regulated militia, and that had been the guiding interpretation until very recently when the right decided to make guns a political issue.

I am certain, then, that you will be able to reference court rulings interpreting the protection of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to be applicable only to a "collective" right, and not to rights of individuals. Please do so.

HotWingConspiracy: Home invasions are uncommon as well, so I guess you don't really need your guns.

So car accidents are uncommon, so you dont need seatbelts?

That is a dumb argument if I ever heard one.

While it's dumb, exactly as you describe, it is also worse than that. Keeping and carrying guns is a Constitutional right. A better analogy is: "Rosa Parks didn't NEED to sit in the front of the bus -- the back goes to the same places as the front." And she didn't have the right at the time, unlike gun owners.

Well, New York state just turned thousands into criminals, but other than that nice effort at ignoring the truth that gun violence has greatly decreased despite a great increase in the number of guns available and being carried every day.

Lorelle tends to ignore data not convenient to her agenda, such as the fact that "assault weapons" are rarely criminally misused. When she does not ignore such data, she instead willfully and dishonestly misrepresents the statements of others.

Well, New York state just turned thousands into criminals, but other than that nice effort at ignoring the truth that gun violence has greatly decreased despite a great increase in the number of guns available and being carried every day.

Wayne 985:I Googled your quote. It's from 1995 in response to a question about assault rifles. If you're still pissing in your pants, lip quivering and thinking that a wistful hope for a democratic vote 8 years ago equates total gun confiscation, then yeah... You're paranoid.

That would be like me refusing to support anything Republicans put forward and using a quote from James Inhofe in the 90s as my rationale. It's stupid.

Nice that you skipped the 2013 Cuomo quotes about confiscation. They're as easy to find as Diane's 1995 quote.

As far as the age goes, what about her actions should make anyone think she's any less radical today? Her 2013 proposal was a greater reach than the totally useless 1994 law.

Tumunga:Subby: "In the last 20 years, gun murders have dropped almost by half. Fark: Americans believe gun crime is rising. Because hospitals have increased the survival rate of gun shot victims by almost 100% in the last 20 yearsThanks, Before ObamacareAmerican media medical caregivers"

FTFSubbie

Since you haven't read the thread, I'll post the same reply to the other idiot that posted without reading the study.

During the same time that murders dropped 40%, NON FATAL incidents dropped 70%.

that bosnian sniper:JustGetItRight: For the same reason that any a rifle, isn't often used in violent crime (only around 300 murders a year). It isn't easily transported or concealed and it is difficult to be used effectively.

So in other words, they're subject to gun control; otherwise, open carry and transportation would be entirely legal.

Um, No not at all. In my state, I can carry my rifle or shotgun in my vehicle with absolutely no permit required. On the other hand, my handguns require a concealed carry permit to be in my vehicle (unless stored in the trunk). Following your logic, the weapon of choice would be the long gun - which can be legally purchased at a younger age and transported without a permit but the weapon of choice is the handgun which is subject to far more restrictions.

Handguns can be hidden and transported in any kind of vehicle. Shotguns can't be transported as easily, but at close range they can be used to brutal effect with very little practice. Both handguns and shotguns are also less expensive than all but the most basic rifles.

That depends heavily upon the firearm involved, its type and manufacture. There are multiple rifles perfectly capable of killing people on the market for $500 or less, and there are both handguns and shotguns on the market for $2000 and above. Frankly, in my experience of decent quality and make, rifles are the cheapest of those three categories -- other than shotguns, they're most definitely the easiest to acquire considering gun laws and taxes that run up overhead for the manufacturer and seller -- all of which are considered forms of gun control, by limiting accessibility on the means of income.

Of course I can spend more on certain handguns and I can find cheap rifles but I can buy a used 9mm or .380 for a couple hundred at any pawn shop. I can get a .38 revolver for a bit over half that (all prices prior to gun grab efforts. Probably more right now) If I watch the sales, I can get a NEW pump at Academy for under $250.

So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

You can't easily hide them and they're hard to bring to bear inside the close quarters of a convenience store, automobile, or living room. In a nutshell, because they aren't effective choices for the job.

that bosnian sniper:JesseL: that bosnian sniper: So again, I submit, if gun control doesn't work then why are the most lethal weapons used least in violent crimes?

Because not many people can carry a rifle or shotgun in their pants.

Yeah, it's almost as if there are laws against open carry, that mean if someone intends to commit a crime they have to conceal their weapons.

Except that even in places where open carry is legal, criminals still don't want to announce to the world that they're carrying. For offensive action you need surprise, for defense deterrence can work too.

Dan the Schman: add that to the advantage of them knowing more about the ins and outs of their own home than a strange intruder, and a couple clips should be adequate.

Right, because everyone carries a bag of extra magazines with them at all times. If you bothered to read my post, you'll have noticed that the aggressor has forewarning and can bring as many magazines as he wants, but the defender is often limited to what is on their person.

As for the one-in-a-million example of the intruder persisting after being shot 5 times..

It isn't one in a million. I'm sure you have a stack of citations proving that criminals are easily foiled with a single shot. In fact, its so obvious that even the police only carry a single bullet with them!

MichiganFTL:JesseL: that bosnian sniper: If gun control doesn't work, then why are automatic firearms the least-employed of all available firearms in violent crimes?

Still have yet to get an answer for that one.

Because fully automatic firearms aren't really any more useful than other types for most things?

I'd love to have one for fun, but if I were knocking over a liquor store or massacring a bunch of kids it wouldn't get the job done any better than what I already have.

Fully automatic firearms are pretty much for suppression rather than mass murder. If you hold down the trigger on a fully auto M16, you've got about 4 seconds, you can't control it as well as semi-auto and you're basically just spray and pray. Remember the North Hollywood Shootout? Full auto, ZERO people killed other than the perpetrators.

Quit living in movies, one well placed shot can do more than 30 on full auto. Surprisingly, outside of the difficulty of getting them, they're just not practical for almost anything a criminal wants to do unless you're laying down suppressing fire while your buddies flank your target...

mrshowrules:dittybopper: mrshowrules: The US has an atypical amount of homicides and gun violence than other industrialized economies. The most obvious explanation is the saturation of fire arms in the society and firearms finding themselves in the hands of criminals. That is the obvious explanation.

It's also the *WRONG* explanation, because it's so simplistic and it ignores cultural differences, which is why it is so beloved of the self-styled intelligentsia.

Is that the same reason why single-payer wouldn't work in the US? Is "cultural differences" a dog whistle for something that I'm not aware of. Funny how it is always Conservatives who resist the idea of funding of serious investigation/study into the problem of gun violence. They fear this research for some reason.

Actually, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling that ACA was constitutional, I argued that single-payer was constitutional. It wasn't my personal preference, but it would have been more intellectually defensible than what we actually got.

mrshowrules:If a purchased a gun out of state and move to your state, I can sell it to you. Actually, I don't even need to have primary residency in your State so long as I own property in it.

True. But if the gun is illegal in this state (which is implied since this facet of the argument was about the lowest common denominator among state gun laws) you probably can't legally sell it. If it's legal in both states, what difference does it make?

mrshowrules:pedrop357: Putting your hand waving away of the root of the overall violence problem together with your desire to shiftithe gun culture and it becomes obvious you don't care about people suffering as much you care about getting rid guns. This kind of thinking is at the heart of so many gun control-for-the-sake-of-gun-control proposals and is reprehensible.

I firmly believe that more guns in society results in more needless death and violence. Clearly one of us is wrong and one of us is right. I would suggest that if you are against gun control on principle, it would not matter what the next impact is to public safety is. That would at least be a more honest position.

The US has an atypical amount of homicides and gun violence than other industrialized economies. The most obvious explanation is the saturation of fire arms in the society and firearms finding themselves in the hands of criminals. That is the obvious explanation. America is not exceptional. You put that many guns in any society and you will end up with more murders and shootings.

Have you seen the stats on the NON-FIREARM murder rate in the United States? It too is much higher than most countries.

Dan the Schman:1. Strange that you compare the regulation of guns to illegal drugs. I guess it's easier than other legal things that are regulated, like alcohol, tobacco, cars, food, clothing, water.

What's strange here? When a criminal element has a demand for an item, regulation doesn't make the demand go away. When the regulation gets tight enough it just drives up black market profits. If you want to fix the problem, the cause of the demand needs to be addressed more than the supply.

Dan the Schman:2. Well, there's the average criminal acting in desperation, and then there's the calculation of someone plotting a massacre. It's not a coincidence that most of the weapons used in these mass shootings are obtained legally, going through illegal channels could net you weapons that will cause greater damage and bloodshed, however it also greatly increases the risk of getting caught before any violence takes place.

Oddly enough, if someone plotting a massacre were to use a weapon that could only be obtained illegally (I'm guessing you're talking about something like machine guns here) the resulting damage and bloodshed would probably be lower. Aimed and controlled fire is more effective than spray-and-pray.

On the other hand, if they were to try an entirely different method of mayhem (like arson) they could probably kill many more people.

JesseL:Wayne 985: Well... YEAH. I feel like you're making my point for me. Extend those standards to private sales like gun shows and reduce it further. Make guns more difficult for bad people to acquire.

The way we've been so successful in making drugs harder to acquire?

Wayne 985: "A bit more" is really the operative phrase here. Make it a LOT more illegal. Someone illegally sells a gun to someone who commits a massacre? Minimum two decades in prison. Even Bill O'Reilly has been calling for this.

Go for it. I kind of doubt it will make any difference. Most criminals don't exactly weigh the potential prison sentence in their risk/reward calculations.

1. Strange that you compare the regulation of guns to illegal drugs. I guess it's easier than other legal things that are regulated, like alcohol, tobacco, cars, food, clothing, water.

2. Well, there's the average criminal acting in desperation, and then there's the calculation of someone plotting a massacre. It's not a coincidence that most of the weapons used in these mass shootings are obtained legally, going through illegal channels could net you weapons that will cause greater damage and bloodshed, however it also greatly increases the risk of getting caught before any violence takes place.

umad:mrshowrules: I didn't realize the US had prohibitions preventing the movement of guns across State lines.

I like how gun control advocates will claim that "minor" inconveniences like background checks and waiting periods will have a drastic affect on gun crime, but being forced to drive TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STATE will have no effect whatsoever.

because the proposed law is that background checks would be required in every State. It would be unavoidable. What is confusing about that?

Dimensio:PDid: The personal rights movement was ginned up and funded by right wing think tanks in the 70s. It has no basis in constitutional law. It's is a wedge issue crafted to keep the working class whites from voting for their own interests. The only cases that have affirmed personal rights are Heller 2008 on the votes of the most biased supreme court in recent history.

You are correct. The idea that rights are a property of individuals has no basis in reality; such irrational and dishonest thinking has resulted in any individual being able to express any opinion that they desire.

Save the pedantry. I was talking about the personal rights to bear arms versus the collective rights.

pedrop357:Putting your hand waving away of the root of the overall violence problem together with your desire to shiftithe gun culture and it becomes obvious you don't care about people suffering as much you care about getting rid guns. This kind of thinking is at the heart of so many gun control-for-the-sake-of-gun-control proposals and is reprehensible.

I firmly believe that more guns in society results in more needless death and violence. Clearly one of us is wrong and one of us is right. I would suggest that if you are against gun control on principle, it would not matter what the next impact is to public safety is. That would at least be a more honest position.

The US has an atypical amount of homicides and gun violence than other industrialized economies. The most obvious explanation is the saturation of fire arms in the society and firearms finding themselves in the hands of criminals. That is the obvious explanation. America is not exceptional. You put that many guns in any society and you will end up with more murders and shootings.

ucfknightryan:Dimensio: I do not understand why, despite so much data, gun control opponents do not recognize that by implementing strict regulation on civilian firearm ownership, the suicide rate of the United States of America could be reduced to the rates seen in France, Japan, Belgium or New Zealand.

Is my sarcasm detector broken, or do you not realize that all those countries have higher suicide rates than the US?

He realizes it. He was using some really good trolling bait.

Wayne 985:This is the most petulant thing I've read in recent memory. "I'd rather a hundred kids die than support a lib."

Wow, you just don't get it do you? For years Dems sat there and said nobody's after your guns then the same month that the senate takes up the background check, Cuomo - who happens to be a potential presidential candidate in 2016 - instantly turns thousands of New Yorkers into criminals and openly talks about confiscation. How the hell did you think gun owners would react?

It was a monumental security failure and the response was tremendously overreaching and also a complete failure. Loonie no. 2, unarmed, was found by a homeowner not by the first search and destroy mission on American soil.

The police need to rethink the "we're a hammer and every problem is a nail" response to these things. Unless, of course, they have a different addenda.

Wayne 985:Well... YEAH. I feel like you're making my point for me. Extend those standards to private sales like gun shows and reduce it further. Make guns more difficult for bad people to acquire.

The way we've been so successful in making drugs harder to acquire?

Wayne 985:"A bit more" is really the operative phrase here. Make it a LOT more illegal. Someone illegally sells a gun to someone who commits a massacre? Minimum two decades in prison. Even Bill O'Reilly has been calling for this.

Go for it. I kind of doubt it will make any difference. Most criminals don't exactly weigh the potential prison sentence in their risk/reward calculations.

Wayne 985:Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. If the background checks had actually been fleshed out and picked up on a thing like this, those people would still be alive.

Background checks as they stand are a joke. They need to dig deeper and they need to be universal. You literally just admitted that a lot of these massacres take place because the law doesn't do much to stop them... Then complain when people try and fix that by closing loopholes and tightening standards.

I've got no problem with making sure that NICS has all the info it needs to operate the way it should, and I'd love it if the people who are legitimately rejected by NICS were actually prosecuted. That might make for a real improvement in something and I support it.

Universal checks though, you still haven't made any rational argument for. Private sales are not a statistically significant source of firearms used in crime, and it would put an unreasonable burden on legitimate buyers and sellers.

Wayne 985:pedrop357: Wayne 985: See above. Not having to wait for a background check is not an "essential liberty."

A right delayed is a right denied.

Also, how do you feel about background checks on prospective voters or to obtain online accounts necessary to post in forums?

You, uh... You realize that you're legally bound to register before you can vote, right? Jesus.

Yes, but people can register with a fake name. People have even voted after being convicted of felonies due to errors in the system. Some people have voted multiple times.It's time to require a full background check every time a person enters a voting booth.

sammyk:There are always going to be people that actually do want to end private gun ownership. There are always going to be politicians that say stupid things on the campaign trail. The states are going to do what the states are going to do. If you actually pay attention to our current political climate you should understand they are not going to get anywhere.

Checks and balances, how do they farking work?

Checks and balances work by people actually doing some checking and balancing. Ignoring the extremists like Feinstein is not an option.

So is selling to a felon, but it happens anyway because our background check system is filled with holes. I'm advocating plugging them.

You can't declare something a crime and then refuse to provide even basic enforcement.

That's how most criminal laws work. There's no way to actively prevent most crimes without creating a police state, they're only enforced when the criminal is caught doing some else (more heinous and/or obvious) and tacked on to the list of charges by the prosecutor.

Hypothetically speaking, if universal background checks were mandated tomorrow how would that be enforced? You might force sales that happen through private sellers at gun shows and through backpage.com to get background checked, but when a black market gun dealer is selling to criminals it won't make a bit of difference.

Most people privately selling guns are pretty strongly interested in making sure the sale remains on the up and up. They usually want to make a bill of sale, see the buyer's drivers license, and preferably their CCW (proof they can pass a background check), because nobody wants a gun used in a crime getting traced to them and if it is they want to have something to show that it's not theirs any more.

That's probably why only 1.7% of the guns used by criminals come through that kind of sale.

Conversely, a black market dealer is already operating illegally and doesn't care if their business is made a bit more illegal.

And I've just finished my milk:clkeagle: Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

Actually, the point worth considering is how much the actions of the gun control crowd contribute to the failure to prevent these mass homicides, because they are so quick to leap on these incidents as opportunities to try and emotionally blackmail their way to new legislation they drown out meaningful discussion.

If the debate following Newtown had been about whether we are doing enough to understand the causes of these tragedies so we can identify and intervene before someone's mind becomes so utterly broken they decide to kill schoolkids we could actually have arrived at some beneficial change. Perhaps an education program to better help parents and teachers spot the warning signs that differentiate normal teenage behaviour from something more serious.

Instead, the gun control bandwagon gets rolling, using this event to promote legislation that wouldn't actually have prevented it. Then the pro-gun crowd respond in kind and we as a country go nowhere.

Sir, this is Fark. This sort of meaningful, insightful comment has no place here.

No gun owner with a shred of humanity wants these tragedies to keep occurring, but doing anything that effects the vast law abiding majority, without a meaningful reason or without much chance of success, is intolerable.

Quit demonizing the law abiding gun owner and come up with a comprehensive policy that really works while protecting valuable rights. And quit passing ridiculous laws in the aftermath of tragedy. It makes you look like fools and causes gun owners to dig in their heels. The problem has taken some time to develop and it will take a while to solve. Will people die in the meantime. Yes. Unavoidable, but it can be fixed.

JustGetItRight:The State of New York and the Mayor of New York City did far more to kill the senate bill than the NRA could ever possibly have accomplished.

Yep. But don't forget Andrew "confiscation is an option" Cuomo.

The best part of that, though, is due to the New York SAFE Act, Governor of the State of New York is the highest elected office he will ever hold.

There is *NO* way he would survive the primary process for the presidency, and if he managed that by some political wizardry, the *ONLY* way the Republicans could screw it up is by running someone like Chris Christie.

mrshowrules:I would assume the violence is correlated to poverty, education and urban density. The guns flow to the violent places and just make things worse. Any negative societal policy will typically and disproportionally impact those populations which are already farked up.

The solution would then be to fix those areas. The shiatty existence and all the problems that guns supposedly make worse ARE STILL THERE.

I guess it's OK for people to live in poverty and with the all bad things as long as those damned guns aren't there to make it even worse.

mrshowrules:Chicago enacting local gun control laws is just a futile act of desperation. Gun control in general will have little short term affect. It will take at least a generation to see meaningful reductions in violence.

Their little experiment in sweeping gun control lasted about a generation, just like DC. The results were far worse for those areas than the rest of the country which was seeing a generation long reduction of gun control laws.

mrshowrules:Look at Australia as a good example of what can happen. It is primarily about shifting the gun culture. The compromise proposed if shifting it to responsible gun ownership as opposed to a free for all..

What happened in Australia that did not happen in New Zealand?

Putting your hand waving away of the root of the overall violence problem together with your desire to shiftithe gun culture and it becomes obvious you don't care about people suffering as much you care about getting rid guns. This kind of thinking is at the heart of so many gun control-for-the-sake-of-gun-control proposals and is reprehensible.

pedrop357:Taking these to an extreme, we would see that the left in this country would do what it could to force us all into dense cities while stripping those in the city of their firearm rights. Work it a bit and you can really infringe upon most people's right to own guns by basically giving them no choice but to live in a city.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwisedispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing orhaving reasonable cause to believe that such person -(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any courtof, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding oneyear;(2) is a fugitive from justice;(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlledsubstance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled SubstancesAct (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has beencommitted to any mental institution;(5) who, being an alien -(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has beenadmitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (asthat term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces underdishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, hasrenounced his citizenship;(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person fromharassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of suchperson or child of such intimate partner or person, or engagingin other conduct that would place an intimate partner inreasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, exceptthat this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person receivedactual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity toparticipate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents acredible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partneror child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempteduse, or threatened use of physical force against such intimatepartner or child that would reasonably be expected to causebodily injury; or(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime ofdomestic violence.This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale ordisposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer,licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector whopursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is notprecluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a personwho has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant tosubsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

mrshowrules:GoldSpider: mrshowrules: It means that comparing the US with other industrialized countries in terms of gun control makes more sense than making comparisons between US States when guns/people move freely from State-to-State.

That comparison could only work if the US only had one set of federal gun laws.

Effectively in terms of gun purchases, the US has only one set of gun laws (the laws of the most lenient States). I've never heard of people turning their guns back over when they move States.

Same with alcohol, sex toys, gasoline fueled equipment, etc.

Time for all of us to adopt Utah's liquor laws since people can just go from NV to UT with high percentage beer and less taxed liquor.

People in MS, GA, TN, etc. can all go to AL with their various sex toys in contravention of state law.

Rinse and repeat with pseudo ephedrine or the myriad things that california bans or restricts that are not similarly banned or restricted in other states.

Perhaps we should just simply force all states to have Vermont, Maine or New Hampshire's gun laws since they work so well in those states.

Wayne 985:Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?

Not really, no. Despite what the media would have you believe, rifles of all kinds are used in roughly 300 murders a year. They're way, way, way down on the list of most deadly weapons. If you specifically target AR style, you're basically into the 'various other items' category.

You want to save lives? How about doing a background check at a car dealership and not selling a car to someone with a DUI conviction.

Source4leko:Dimensio: CPennypacker: the_foo: CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.

I assume that you also believe that Tea Party members who dispute the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, despite a court ruling contradicting their position, are not "fools".

This right the fark here. This is what everyone on both sides of the gun debate and the healthcare debate need to realize. They are seriously alienating anyone left in the middle to apathy.

Unfortunately to the pro-gun, there is no middle. If you're not pro-gun you're right the fark on the other extreme with everybody else.

I took the opportunity to examine the site that you referenced; the site allows customers to arrange firearm purchases for pick-up at a physical store. It in no way allows customers to order firearms for delivery to their homes, and your comparison of that website to such a delivery service is demonstrably false.

Fair enough. Dittyderpers comparison of just about anything is demonstrably false. You see he treadshiats anything that has to do with guns. He desperately does anything he can to derail the conversation.

Wait: What I said is true, what you said is false, but I'm the one at fault?

*REALLY*?

If you did not advocate a position that he opposes, he would not have had to issue poorly researched claims that were easily disproved.

Yeah, nobody likes it when you fark with the narrative they've emotionally invested themselves in.

CPennypacker:Dimensio: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition. There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

hasty ambush:sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

The ban on "Assault Weapons" and high capacity magazines expired so I can claim that more people being able to arm and defend themselves with previously banned weapons contributed. to the decline.

I think it would be smarter to look at the decline in gang turf wars and drug violence during that time than gun laws or lack there of. It won't serve your agenda but it is closer to the truth.

Most "gun control" legislation is nothing more than polticians jerking off a particular constituency(If we just get rid fo those guns with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and pistol grip stocks we will all be safer nonsense). Normally that constituency is the soccer mom for the children crowd or those who also need government to protect them from the evils of large soft drinks and trans fats is also afraid the 80 million lawful gun owners.

As a military academy grad we had some bad apples that the rest of us suffered for (sexual assault, regular assault). We bore the stigma because that's part of the deal. We also addressed any shortcomings internally far more harshly than the courts.

Man up and admit that the current situation is a bastardization of it's original intent or keep being irrational and continue to be marginalized.

I took the opportunity to examine the site that you referenced; the site allows customers to arrange firearm purchases for pick-up at a physical store. It in no way allows customers to order firearms for delivery to their homes, and your comparison of that website to such a delivery service is demonstrably false.

Fair enough. Dittyderpers comparison of just about anything is demonstrably false. You see he treadshiats anything that has to do with guns. He desperately does anything he can to derail the conversation.

Wait: What I said is true, what you said is false, but I'm the one at fault?

CPennypacker:I read enough of your BS in these threads. I don't need to go looking for more of your work

Fine. Here's what I've said previously, just as a "fark you" to you personally, and I'll let others decide if it's BS. Links for my sources are available in the original post:

It's not racism to point out the facts. I've actually done the math, and poor blacks have a 2.5 times higher homicide rate than poor whites. My sources were data from the Centers for Disease Control, and the US Census.

Or are you going to argue that math is racist?

Really, violence is largely a cultural phenomenon, and you learn your cultural values largely from your parents and peers, who learned their values from their parents and peers, who learned it from theirs, and so forth back down the line. That's why "European Americans" have a European-like homicide rate, 2.74 per 100,000 in the US vs. 3.5 per 100,000 for Europe*.

It's got nothing to do with melanin content, and everything to do with how cultural values are transmitted. Starting in the 1960's, the traditional black family structure started to shatter. It was noted as far back as 1965 that this trend was a major problem in the black community. All of the traditional values that would normally have been passed from a stable two parent family were essentially abandoned, because out-of-wedlock birth became the norm, not the exception, and single parent homes became the norm, not the exception.

It is interesting to note that after you control for poverty, the increased homicide rate in non-hispanic blacks over non-hispanic whites (2.46 times higher rate) is similar to the born-out-of-wedlock rate (69.5% black non-hispanic births / 25.4% white non-hispanic births = 2.74 times higher).

My theory is that while poverty is a factor, it's totally overwhelmed by the cutting off of traditional cultural values in the black community due to the destruction of the traditional black family in the last 50 years or so. The transmission of cultural values against violence from parent to child are attenuated when only one parent is around to transmit them. That leaves a void where peers can step in, and lacking the control of a strong male father-figure to reign in the worst excesses of testosterone poisoning common in young males, you end up with a homicide rate among young black males that is around 90 per 100,000.

Let me be completely and unequivocally clear: It's got nothing to do with the color of their skin. While I don't have hard numbers, I suspect that blacks who are raised within a traditional, two-parent family structure have a homicide rate closer to that of whites, regardless of economic condition. There is no reason why the black homicide rate *HAS* to be higher, it can and should be changed, but the change must come from within the black community, not imposed on it from the outside, and that change will take decades, just like it took decades for their homicide and bastardy rates to hit where they are now.

*Northern, Western, and Southern Europe all have rates between 1.0 and 1.5, whereas Eastern Europe has a rate of 6.4 per 100,000. It would make sense that the "European Americans" have a rate biased towards lower end, because of all the immigration from Western, Northern, and Southern Europe, but higher because of a significant amount of immigration from Eastern Europe.

CPennypacker:They assembled and trained. I think training and a sense of community would reduce a lot of the problems we have with gun violence. At the very least it would help people in treating guns with the respect they deserve.

A lot of positive ideas there, all without the need for more ineffectual regulation.

Noticeably F.A.T.:You can argue that to have the right to keep an bear arms requires you to actually be in an active, well-regulated militia (I won't agree with you, but I'll admit that it's not the worst argument I've ever seen), but to then say that militia is supposed to be under control of the government is just ridiculous.

Tomahawk513:I have called for a Mental Health check as part of a background check though, I think that could significantly decrease gun deaths both from suicides and from "crazed gunman" scenarios similar to Newtown or Aurora.

Please tell us all what kind of check would have worked to stop Newtown, the incident where the shooter murdered his mother and stole her guns.Also, what kind of check would have stopped the guy in Aurora? He hadn't been arrested or committed that I'm aware of.

Garble:cman: vpb: Yes, those tough anti gun laws in some parts are starting to pay off.Now we need to expand on a winning strategy./look at where the gun violence is highest

Maine has a shiatton of guns and few gun laws and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

Maine also has ridiculously low population density.

Maybe we're on to something. If the entire Chicago metro statistical area had the same homicide rate as the state of Vermont, there would have been around 110 homicides in 2011.

Perhaps it's time to rethink this progressive driven idea of pushing everyone into cities. Perhaps people aren't meant to live so close to large numbers of people they have no connection to.

It's a bit of a conspiracy theory and certainly a stretch, but I find it fascinating that it's libs/Dems/progressives/whatever that always push for an end to sprawl and want more people to live in smaller areas AND are the same ones to fight things like state preemption on the basis that cities should be allowed to have more restrictive gun laws because it's different in cities than the suburbs or rural areas.

Taking these to an extreme, we would see that the left in this country would do what it could to force us all into dense cities while stripping those in the city of their firearm rights. Work it a bit and you can really infringe upon most people's right to own guns by basically giving them no choice but to live in a city.

sammyk:ArmagedDan: clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over

Where do you paranoid freaks get this shiat? No one is seriosly talking about confiscating guns. Hell even the proponents of another assault weapons ban have all but admitted defeat and have changed focus to trying to expand background checks. rants like yours are why people call you "gun nuts"

Well I'm glad they'll be satisfied if they're given expanded background checks.

Tomahawk513:While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide. For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts. Other methods are much less lethal. There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.

So what does the suicide attempt rate look like in countries like Japan and South Korea, which both have HIGHER suicide rates than we do and incredibly strict gun control? How about Australia, which has a similar suicide rate and strict gun control?

There must be an unbelievably high number of people injured or permanently disfigured from all the failed suicide attempts.

Dusk-You-n-Me:pdee: Let me get this straight. In a city where it is practically impossible to get a gun and is less than 50 miles from 2 other states slightly more than 1/2 of guns recovered came from other states.

Correct. Which is why we need UBC on a national level.

What good does that do?

If I live in Chicago, I can go to another city in IL and buy guns and bring them back to Chicago.

I can also get my friend, relative, business partner in a border state to ILLEGALLY buy a gun on my behalf which I then bring into Chicago.

Do you really think the guy illegally selling me a gun is going to do a background check on me if the law begins to require one?

The big question is, why don't the other cities in IL or those border states and their cities have a crime rate like Chicago?

CPennypacker:the_foo: CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.

I assume that you also believe that Tea Party members who dispute the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, despite a court ruling contradicting their position, are not "fools".

Wayne 985:Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

That's a horrible comparison. Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime. Merely owning a weapon harms nobody. If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

pdee:But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation. That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available. Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent. Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.

nekom:sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though. Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother. Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols. Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers. I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here. Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

I recently dumped a bunch of people off of face book because they kept posting wildly outlandish "Libruls R stealing R guns" posts. When I suggested that maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about gun laws that worked well they freaked out. According to them crime is through the roof, society is falling apart and a Mad Max reality will be here by next tuesday. Having been a teen during the crack fueled gang violence of the 80's I don't understand how an intelligent person can compare then to now. I just don't have time for stupid any more.

mrshowrules:Source4leko: mrshowrules: The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

A declining rate doesn't mean jack shiat.

If you really think this you are an idiot.

If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence, good for you I suppose. I'm Canadian, so I'm not stressed either way.

If you seriously think that declining rates of this crime occurring mean nothing then I don't even know what to say to you. Do declining rates of pollution not mean that pollution controls are working?

Tomahawk513:Endive Wombat: Tomahawk513: When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist? History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful. Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.

Again, fair enough...sure perhaps suicide gun deaths may go down as the availability of guns becomes less and less. But back to my original point - When politicians try to site all gun deaths (murder, suicide, self-protection, death by police, accidents) as a basis for restricting access to guns and using "won't somebody please think of the children" Sandyhook, Aurora, etc...it is in effect, lying

There are about 30,000+ deaths per year by gun.

There are about 19,000+ deaths per year by suicide by gun

This leaves about 11,000+ deaths by violent crime, death by police, accident and self-protection (6000+ of which are related to outright homicide)

Soooooo...Leftist politicians like to site the 30,000+ gun deaths per year as a reason for their newest anti-gun legislation, and mention protecting children, mass shootings, intercity crime, etc.

Do you now see where I am coming from?

To your credit, I don't think much of the recent legislation would have had any effect on suicide deaths by firearm, but who knows. If it were up to me, I'd require a Mental Health pass/fail as part of the background check, HIPAA be damned. If we want "crazies" to stop getting access to guns, this would go a long way to that effect.

But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

MJMaloney187:soakitincider: 2nd amendment:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.

mrshowrules:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ablejack: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: My right to own an inanimate object trumps your right to live

Blatant false dichotomy is blatantly false.

The well regulated militia is well regulated.

It seems I have to post this in every gun thread, because there's someone like you who is ignorant to the fact that words and phrases change over time.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Those examples are all hyphenated. I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.

Also those examples are all in Arial font whereas the constitution is old English script so they cant mean the same thing.

dittybopper:CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition. There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

CPennypacker:pdee: CPennypacker: pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion? But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.

But when anyone points out the racially adjusted murder statistics put the US in line with most European countries the charge of racism is brought up as if to refute the point.

Because its not the race, its the economic condition. The fact that race correlates is the fault of history.

legion_of_doo:Slaves2Darkness: Abortion, it is the root cause of all drops in crime statistics. Why if we aborted every baby whose parents don't make 50,000 a year each America would become a paradise on Earth.

I realize this is a troll... but abortion is not a good practice. i that life is so disposable degrades all of us. killing off the urban poor may be a nice taking point in your econ class, but it's vile and racist imo.

recent mass murderers were from families that did have access to mental health services. the 9/11 guys were also well educated. murder is not just about wealth, even if the murder of the wealthy is what we talk about.

/ now watch this drive

"Recent mass murders" are a dumb metric as they are rare and not a significant number of all murders. The same reasons that make abortion make sense in an econ class support it in a sociology class.

GnomePaladin:This is where gun nuts always go wrong. No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.

Funny way to spell 'retarded'. For example - if the gun control advocates wanted to pass the background check during the last episode of epic failure, why did they insert the need to register the type of wepon as well? They know that is a non-starter with the gun rights crowd. Especially since it lends nothing to the actual process of a background check.

I suspect that if they would have stripped this provision, it would have likely passed.

HeadLever:GnomePaladin: Maine has a shiatton of guns space and few gun laws people and yet their murder rate is pretty much nearly at the bottom of all states for gun crimes.

So you mean gun crime is independent of the type and prevalence of guns and is rooted in other factors? Hmm, maybe we should start looking at those other factors then, donchathink?

This is where gun nuts always go wrong. No one in favor of stronger regulation is averse to looking at "other factors" as well, while the gun nuts are absolutely against some common sense steps involving regulation.

CPennypacker:because although in imperical terms the constitution exists to protect rights, the enforcement and intepretation of it determines what people are actually allowed to do.

The fact that We The People have allowed our government to breach its constitutional constraints does not mean it hasn't happened. Some of us aren't happy about that, but you're free to disagree (until that too becomes a "collective right", I suppose).

CPennypacker:pdee: CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion? But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.

But when anyone points out the racially adjusted murder statistics put the US in line with most European countries the charge of racism is brought up as if to refute the point.

GoldSpider:CPennypacker: Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right.

Are there any other rights in the Bill of Rights that you don't believe are individual rights? Or is the 2nd just a glaring exception?

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is said to reference a "collective right" because it defines the right as belonging to "people" instead of to individuals, which no other Amendment does, if the wording of the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments are ignored.

pdee:CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion? But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

It tends to disprove their narrative of the gun being responsible for crime, and not the individual. So they resort to the only debate strategy they ever seem to use, ad hominem.

CPennypacker:GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion? But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

IlGreven:If that 5-year-old kid got a "My first knife" or "My first spear" instead of "My first rifle", I guarantee you his sister would still be alive.

If his parents hadn't loaded, cocked, de-safed, and then left the rifle lying in the corner with him unsupervised, his sister would be alive. For an analogy, imagine the parents removed the guards from a circular saw, jammed down the power button, and left it on the floor while they took a shower. Its really disgusting.

The fault here is with his actively dangerous parent, not the company that made a rifle designed to be as safe as possible for supervised instruction in markmanship. (Its sized right for youths, the cocking spring is so stiff you need adult strength to cock the rifle, its single shot, etc.)

Shocking, the society that doesn't believe in statistics and math is having trouble wrapping around trends.

Seriously, that's not just an American media problem. From climate change trends to the age of the earth, our society as a whole coddles morons, treating their ignorance like it's just as valid and rational as someone elses evidence-based knowledge and observation.

HeadLever:fonebone77: America is still higher but its not some crazy number like 20X.

His number of 20x is pretty much bogus. Right now, the firearm homicide rate in the US is about 3.8 per 100K. Let see him compare this to his cross section of 22 other contries. Yes, we may be higher than most of them, but not by an average of 20 times.

/mrshowrules needs to quit drinking the talking point Kool-aid.

Comparing only "firearm homicides", and not total homicide rates, is itself indicative of intellectual dishonesty.

EatenTheSun:nekom: Dimensio:They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

You are correct; declaration of a protected liberty as an "anachronism" legally eliminates the protection, without any need for actual legislative revision.

Of course it doesn't. That's just my opinion. I realize it's not likely to ever go away, but it's as silly as worrying about quartering troops in your house in this day and age. When the constitution was written, blacks were property, women couldn't vote, etc. It's not some holy document to be worshiped as gospel.

It's just the founding principles of the entire country. We can just ignore the parts we don't like. Like free speech for those WBC assholes. Ain't nobody got time for that.

No more 4th amendment for anyone convicted of a crime related to drugs, violence, guns, money, alcohol, or sex.

The 5th amendment shouldn't apply to people who were caught in the act, not should the 8th apply to people who are accused of really heinous crimes.

I still think that reforming slavery laws and moving away from the absolutist approach to slavery is the key to prosperity in this country.

For those "anachronism" talkers out there, can we start ignoring the 16th amendment too? It was written at time when a lot of the country didn't have phone service, many places didn't have electricity, women couldn't vote, black people couldn't marry white people in most states, etc. I mean, for fark's sake, it was written before prohibition. Why should we be bound by some 100 year old amendment written old white men?

HotWingConspiracy:There are the frequent massacres to consider. We're not supposed to talk about them because it's very insensitive towards gun owners.

Thats like saying that people are frequently kill by lightning or meteor strikes or that people frequently win the lotto. Just because on the infrequent occasion that it happens it becomes a 24x7 news story for weeks at a time does not mean it is statistically a danger.

fonebone77:America is still higher but its not some crazy number like 20X.

His number of 20x is pretty much bogus. Right now, the firearm homicide rate in the US is about 3.8 per 100K. Let see him compare this to his cross section of 22 other contries. Yes, we may be higher than most of them, but not by an average of 20 times.

GoldSpider:Dimensio: One Farker has explicitly expressed the opinion that stabbing homicides preferable to firearm homicides.

Is that the same person who recuses to compare automobile deaths to gun deaths because "guns are designed to kill people"?

I do not know. Upon observing the individual openly admit that a decline in "gun death" rates is desirable even if the overall homicide rate increases, I disregarded any further commentary from the poster as irrational and without any intellectual merit.

cman:For 30 years the crime rate has fallen, not 20 as you say. It has been a downward trend even before the Brady legislation was signed.

No, that's not true. The US violent crime rate has been dropping since the mid 90s, just like the rest of the Western world. There was a small decrease in the early 80s, when the baby boomers began getting too old for that shiat, but it increased again in the following years and topped out around '91-'92.

tricycleracer:Endive Wombat: I wish that folks would stop lumping suicide by gun into gun death stats. My reason is this: If someone is determined to kill themselves, they are going to use whatever means necessary,

You say that, but the FIREARM suicide rate went down 65% in Australia in the decade after their gun ban.

sammyk:Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

sammyk:Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

We should start with automobiles.

Car crashes kill WAY more people then guns.

So does alcohol.

We should make a government list of people mentally capable of buying booze or a death machine like a car.

And how one chooses to respond to statistics like these is apparently a matter of interpretation. For some on the right, the argument seems to be, "But look at how much better things are than 20 years ago!" For the left, the argument is, "We still have far more gun deaths than any industrialized democracy on the planet, and with some sensible safety measures, we can build on the recent progress and save more lives."

It's a debate, in other words, between "better" and "not good enough." Link

sammyk:Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

Well, correlation does not imply causation, but it does suggest it's worth looking into. I have nothing whatsoever against background checks, they may well stop some crimes, but they fall short of solving the problem entirely. I'm not knocking them one bit, I'm saying we need more than just that. I have a 6 year old daughter, I would prefer to live in a world where some lunatic will not shoot up her school.

nekom:sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though. Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother. Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols. Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers. I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here. Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.